Being immigrated in France what can happen to me if Marine Le Pen wins the elections

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

This is why I love the far left. A complete and utter lack of self-awareness.

You know the definition of insanity is doing a thing over and over again and expecting different results. One wonders how many times Marxism has to fail before its adherents go and do something more productive with their lives.

No, I said you are an idiot because you implied I was somehow anti-semitic when I said absolutely zilch about the Jews, just stated the fact that Macron was a Rothschild banker before he started his political gig. And yes, you are an idiot, and potentially a racist since you made that comparison. All bankers are Jews according to you, am I right?

What didn't get in your thick head is that it wasn't about "the joos" as you so delicately put it, but about unbridled Big Finance and the disasters it causes all around us. Grow up.

Thanks, but I wasn't born yesterday. I know a dog whistle when I see one, and the Rothschild conspiracy theories that the far left subscribe to are little more than reheated anti-semitic tropes.

Originally Posted by skacky

No, I said you are an idiot because you implied I was somehow anti-semitic when I said absolutely zilch about the Jews, just stated the fact that Macron was a Rothschild banker before he started his political gig. And yes, you are an idiot, and potentially a racist since you made that comparison. All bankers are Jews according to you, am I right?

See above. As for the rest of it, you are getting even funnier, which I didn't think possible.

"Rothschild banker" is pretty blatant antisemetic-speak whether you intended it or not. Use it if you want to talk like Nazis actually talk, I guess. You know now, so you don't have an excuse.

Any resentment based political ideology is bound to be bullshit anyway. Any policy involves literally 1000s of pages of code, legislative history, case law, commentaries. Anybody that reduces that to "the 1%" or "neoliberalism" is making shit up to give themselves a target to be angry at because people don't know how to be angry at 1000s of pages of dense legalese.

How is stating the fact that he worked at the Rothschild bank anti-semitic discourse? Are you people for real? I have never implied he was Jewish nor do I have anything against the Jews. I stated a fact. The guy comes from the big money circles and that's what he does. I don't like the banks and I don't like current Capitalism, I don't see how that makes me hate the Jews somehow.

I still don't see how stating the FACT that he worked at the Rothschild bank is racialized vocabulary, but whatever floats your boat I guess. I wasn't the one to make the connection with the Jews.

EDIT: Okay, I see. Just to clarify, again: I have a problem with finance and banks themselves, I think they are out of control and allowed far too much power. The fact that our new president was a banker in an important establishment is a problem for me for this reason and not another. He could've come from any other bank, my reaction would have been the same.

He didn't know so no ill intent, it just sounds bad when you have any historical perspective.

It's the weird thing in our era that people have inherited all these narratives of why finance and bankers are so bad, but they've detached from all of historical context, so this curious orphaned resentment and distrust remains without remembering why we resented and distrusted them pretty much since the medieval era, since this is far from a new narrative.

And why are they so bad again? Greedy, right? Bloodsucking to poor for a dime, right? Do you want to explore where that resentment comes from as you've been taught it? That's really the purpose of that kind of excursion. That and just historical consciousness.

Anyway, I'm drawing this out too much, so I'll happily drop it and mea culpa. It's obvious you had no bad intention and it's standard leftist fodder. That's fine. Just on the standard fodder front, it strikes me as paleo-Left since the contemporary Left is about identity politics, environmental and social justice, etc. Worrying about bankers sounds like something our grandparents would worry about and somehow out of touch. But it's hardly unprecedented so whatevs.

I take issue with big finance because the power only belongs to the very wealthy and the corrupt political elite while the rest of the people is left with the very few leftovers. You have banks that, instead of keeping your money safe without touching it, like they should, will happily play with it and lose it without you ever giving your consent for that. I have no problem with business banks, but in France there is no separation between these and banks for the common folk where people just want to store their damn money. You have establishments like La Société Générale in France that lost billions through shady operations, and this scandal is still far from over. I'd be content with the banks just being vaults to store your hard-earned money. The end. This is what they should do, in my opinion.

Macron has connections with these banks as well as big corporations, and Hollande's government gave astronomical amounts of money to them to create jobs. What did they do? They grabbed the money for themselves and didn't create any new jobs. Nada. I'm just incredibly worried this scenario will repeat itself, especially since Macron has no pretense of being from the Left like Hollande did.

Regarding your last paragraph: that's what I mean when I say I'm a traditional Leftist. I don't care much at all about identity politics and think they're actually very dangerous and incredibly divisive (especially in the US with the racial/gender conflicts I just find insanely vapid and counter-productive). I don't align much at all with the so-called American Left that is all about this and their perverted version of "social justice". I'm all for environmental preservation though, but not to the extent of the radical Green parties that have unrealistic programs and objectives. A vast majority of Mélenchon's voters, like I, are worried about the financial aspect of things. We're the old school kind, sort of.

Does the right (or non-left) play with your money, but the left doesn't? I was under the impression the the left doesn't help with creating jobs that well either. The welfare state is like the greatest tool society has managed to devise to date, to keep people from working.

It's good that you're not into the identity-politics retardation. It's such a massive waste of everyone's time and sets us back as a species in a way that things like religion did, except religion kept the babies popping out, so this crap is more of a threat.

Politics should always start and end with the financial aspect in the first place. That is - it shouldn't be an aspect - it should be all of it. But since they love to coat it up with the social justice (social cancer) disease, then it gets people more involved on a personal level and suddenly it's about who is more likeable and appealing (based on any person's arbitrary experience which *happens to have* nothing to do with actual politics) instead of who can get the job done... and it ends up being a battle of politicians and other important people's financials instead of the people's financials.

So some well-rounded guy won or what? Is this person having a grasp for reality (understands things like mass immigration being a real problem in the real world) and empathy for an opposing opinion (since it's not left) while also isn't stubbornly set in his ways and over-the-top against change (since he's not right)?

From what I understand, he's French Hillary Clinton without the baggage. He's competent, and has at least some idea of how things work, but his heavy pandering to the financial sector over other interests will only serve to continue an economic trend that already has everyone's politics up in arms.

In short, he represents the downside to our current status quo. The only reason people are celebrating his win is because of what he was running against.

Maybe the beginnings of a new country named FrUSAnce ?
(And it sounds like a label or even a franchise )

Maybe he was betrayed by his body language ?

I found it bizarre too...

Well the main goal to counter MLP and her FN has been achieved. We'll see what's next....

Speaking of which (or the witch), I'm a bit frightened by the votes in my region (Hauts-de-France), MLP scored a good percentage....

Yes, MLP is the Queen of Nord pas de calais, but she scored more in the small villages, while in the cities like Lille, Amiens, Reims or the cities close to me Laon, Saint-Quentin, chauny she lost. but small villages here like the one i´m living MLP has won.

It's the weird thing in our era that people have inherited all these narratives of why finance and bankers are so bad, but they've detached from all of historical context, so this curious orphaned resentment and distrust remains without remembering why we resented and distrusted them pretty much since the medieval era, since this is far from a new narrative.

eh? Detached from all historical context? So what about the global financial crisis, y'know the one that happened less than a decade ago..

From what I understand, he's French Hillary Clinton without the baggage. He's competent, and has at least some idea of how things work, but his heavy pandering to the financial sector over other interests will only serve to continue an economic trend that already has everyone's politics up in arms.

In short, he represents the downside to our current status quo. The only reason people are celebrating his win is because of what he was running against.

Jeez, that sucks. What was he up against that was so demonic? Was he/she unlikeable due to quirks in their character and some unpopular identity politics opinions? Or did they pose a threat to actual issues, as in somehow destroying the economy even beyond what this guy will do? That would be an important distinction to make, because if it's not the latter, then France as a country probably deserves everything that's coming to it from this.

eh? Detached from all historical context? So what about the global financial crisis, y'know the one that happened less than a decade ago..

Well if you're asking me to respond to a direct question like that...

Toxic morgage derivatives and the dysfunction in the housing bubble (which btw was pretty antithetical to free market principles since legal mechanisms were propping up the losses so price signals weren't working) would make people's eyes cross in complexity and obfuscation. If someone had the wherewithal to properly research them in advance of the collapse & got the securities agency paying attention my hat is off to them. That's the kind of thing you need to stop financial crises from occurring. Bemoaning "oh if only we thought bankers were just a little more greedy and corrupt we would have surely avoided all of this" sounds laughable in comparison. Unless we think people won't research toxic derivatives unless they thought corruption oozed in peoples' souls, in which case I'd distrust their analysis for different reasons. I wished someone had done it because it's prudent policy making and not from a random soundbite they may or may not have heard depending on if they got the meme in their feed or not.

Are you interested in stopping financial crises or do you just assume there's a class of people that are corrupt by nature & it's our job to purify them? It's the emotive rhetoric I don't like. Makes my skepticism meter twitch. Learn securities law and policy & research it properly with the public welfare in mind if you really cared.

----------
Edit. It's what I do. We did an expose on labor rights abuses in China at textile factories making clothes for H&M and Uniqlo, then we followed up with pressure on the companies and they gave in and insisted on some labor protections (not enough, we're still pushing). Are all Chinese factory managements corrupt (nevermind its a Communist country)? It's embedded in the entire labor culture in Asia. The workers aren't even clear when their rights are being violated. Our campaign worked (to the extent it did) because we were meticulous with our documentation and analysis. Painting the entire labor culture of east and southeast Asia as subhuman wouldn't have been constructive. I read an article that went on and on about our case as if these factory owners and liberalism itself were pathologic (lol at assuming textbook liberalism in China though), but she missed every part that made our campaign actually work. And no matter what, the local economy still needs the factories, they just need to be unable to sweep abuses under the rug per old cultural norms. It's about the slow process of capacity building, not some kind of social purity or soul reconstruction whatever that would be.

Actually, that's incorrect. Numerous people - and not just economists - had warned that massive bubbles would emerge from tearing down the firewalls in the US and world financial system. Numerous people had warned that repealing the Glass - Steagall act and deregulating the financial industry would reproduce the rampant speculative behaviour leading to previous financial crises, including the Great Depression. It did not take rocket science to understand the consequences of unchecked human greed, only a little familiarity with history, human nature and economic cycles.

However, the people who had warned about these problems - and especially the economists - were attacked and dismissed as outdated, "fringe theorists" and conspiracy nuts. Economic history was discounted as irrelevant after Fukuyama's ridiculous end of history argument, human nature was considered to have been supplanted by sophisticated algorithms and advanced econometric models, and economic cycles - along with all the work done by Keynes - were considered a thing of the past. But it was not for a lack of sound evidence and clear arguments that the new financial crisis had happened. No. It had happened contrary to all that evidence and all those arguments. It had happened because mainstream economics had embraced shills and apologists like Lawrence Summers and Alan Greenspan (who had foreseen the mortgage bubble, but did very little to deflate it), and dismissed their opponents as has-beens and crackpots. These professionals had accepted quite a lot of money, cushy positions and media hype in exchange for saying the "right things". It was - and to a large extent, still is - a case of deeply rooted institutional corruption. But just because there is corruption does not mean everyone was corrupt. Ann Pettifor had written a book on it. David Korten had foreseen it back in the 1990s. Joseph Stiglitz had criticised the root causes leading to it. Nouriel Roubini had put money on it. The Keynesians knew how to prevent it - there was a working system in place to prevent or at least diminish the consequences of financial crises before this system was deliberately junked.

So no, it is incorrect to claim that nobody could foresee it. A lot of alternative economists foresaw it. Hell, I foresaw it when I was a student (although I thought it would happen a few years later). It was the crooks and liars who had described these issues as so complicated only the anointed experts could understand them. They weren't: they were actually painfully, blatantly clear to anyone who paid attention. The exact mechanism was complex, but the underlying dynamics were just a rerun of previous episodes. Yes, we could have prevented this if we learned from experience, and we had restrained the greedsters on Wall Street and The City. Damn right they are corrupt by nature, and they need firm rules to be restrained. They weren't, and we will have to live with the consequences.

Bemoaning "oh if only we thought bankers were just a little more greedy and corrupt we would have surely avoided all of this" sounds laughable in comparison.
Are you interested in stopping financial crises or do you just assume there's a class of people that are corrupt by nature & it's our job to purify them? It's the emotive rhetoric I don't like. Makes my skepticism meter twitch. Learn securities law and policy & research it properly with the public welfare in mind if you really cared.

Not sure if this was directed at me specifically; but if so you are putting words in my mouth, and also being pretty condescending. My point was pretty simple: it's clearly absurd to say people's resentment towards big banking mechanisms has zero historical context after the gfc.